Flaws of Referendums Exposed Worldwide

Referendums date back to ancient Rome and became a popular global practice during the 1980’s. Political leaders hold referendums to provide popular legitimacy to government actions and, at times, to avoid making controversial decisions. During the past several months, various governments have held referendums to decide upon matters of national importance, including the United Kingdom, Colombia, and Thailand. These referendums uncover the common forces that undermine democratic ideals: the power of disinformation, the knowledge deficit among voters, and happenstance.

Experts and analysts of all political affiliations widely panned the outcome of the Brexit vote this past June. Many supporters of Brexit now regret their decision; one poll carried out just after the vote suggesting that over a million “Leave” voters would change their vote if given the chance. Why did the British population make such an apparently shocking error? In part, voters lacked knowledge about the benefits of the European Union (EU). For instance, areas in the United Kingdom most economically dependent on the European Union showed greater support for leaving the EU than those in areas less dependent on the Union. More importantly, voters faced a mass disinformation campaign that inhibited them from grasping the facts. For instance, Nigel Farage, a leader in the “Leave” campaign, claimed that the money Britain provided to the Union each week could instead go towards the National Health Service; however, he retracted this claim an hour after “Leave” officially won the referendum. He and his allies also withdrew claims that leaving the EU would lead to reduced immigration, a central issue of the “Leave” campaign. Thus, voters not only lacked knowledge about the EU, but what knowledge they did have largely consisted of lies and exaggerations created for political gain.

Unsupported claims explain in part the outcome of the Colombian referendum. Earlier this month, Colombian voters rejected a peace deal with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that would have ended a civil war that has ravaged the country for decades. “No” voters were largely driven by a sense of outrage at what they viewed as leniency, including provisions that provided stipends, mild sentencing, and guaranteed congressional seats for FARC. The “No” campaign assured supporters that Colombia could negotiate a better deal. Yet FARC stated repeatedly that no such “Plan B” would occur, and many observers note that removing any of the aforementioned provisions would cause FARC to abandon the deal entirely. Proximity to the fighting also played a role in the vote. Colombia’s periphery regions, which are most affected by the conflict, largely voted in favor of the peace deal, while those areas least affected by the war voted against the deal. The referendum result reflects a knowledge deficit issue like that of the Brexit case: those least able to understand the damage caused by the conflict found it easier to risk further conflict in the name of more vengeful provisions. Furthermore, a hurricane in the Caribbean made it difficult for rural voters, those in the periphery, to reach the polls to vote. Overall voter participation did not reach forty percent.

The referendum in Thailand differs from the previous two examples in that the state used its power to directly influence the results. The government passed a law that made it a crime to discuss the referendum in either a positive or negative way, a measure that had a larger effect on the opposition. Thus, citizens heard only arguments in favor of the constitution, primarily that it would help reform and reduce corruption, without input from the opposition. The passage of the referendum allowed the military to gain full control of the government, as one provision empowers the military to select the entirety of the country’s senate while a second allows the Senate to appoint a prime minister. Thus, the spread of misinformation, mixed with repressive measures by the government, resulted in a less representative and democratic system of governance, an ironic result from such a pure example of democracy in action.

John F. Kennedy once quipped that “the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.” Indeed, as the above examples show, such ignorance, purposeful or otherwise, leads to harmful outcomes. Referendums are a powerful democratic tool, but without educated voters, citizens will have a weaker ability compared to that of their representatives to reach conclusions beneficial for the country as a whole.